Challenger, et al,
The use of this particular (Non-Binding) 1982 Resolution (A/RES/37/43) is --- all by itself --- problematic. Thinking in terms of the reality in 1982, what did we have. Many Palestinian groups have been involved in politically motivated violence; but none more infamous than the
Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). And the PLO organization had but one purpose --- the "liberation of Palestine" through armed struggle
(Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine; with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.). This of course, meant the disillusionment of the 1948 State of Israel. In 1982, it was the view of the PLO that the partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the State of Israel were entirely illegal. That the UN had no right to allow and then recognize the State of Israel. In effect the PLO view was that the
Balfour Declaration, the
San Remo Convention, the
Palestine Order in Council and the
Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void. AND the PLO had rejected all solutions which were substitutes, or alternatives, for the total liberation of Palestine.
In 1982, the State of Palestine had not been created yet.
The PLO had not declared Independence until 1988.
In 1982, this UN Resolution advocated the support of the PLO, a Palestinian Terrorist organization.
- Airliner hijackings had been an element in the PLO's strategy since 1967. In retaliation against an attack on an El Al airliner in Athens in 1968, Israel mounted a helicopter raid against the Beirut International Airport, destroying thirteen Arab-owned aircraft. A number of deadly terrorist incidents and guerrilla attacks against Israeli West Bank settlements occurred during the 1970s. In an attempt at hostage-taking, the Black September group, an extremist faction of Al Fatah, killed eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. A climax in the terrorist campaign occurred in March 1978, when Al Fatah raiders landed on the Israeli coast south of Haifa, attacking a bus and cars on the Tel Aviv-Haifa highway. Thirty-five Israelis were killed and at least seventy-four were wounded. In reaction to the highway attack, the IDF launched Operation Litani in April 1978, a three-month expedition to clear the PLO guerrillas from Lebanese border areas. Within one week, the strong IDF force had driven back The PLO and established complete control in southern Lebanon up to the Litani River.
- The UN has felt the coercive impact of asymmetric Palestinian political violence and Palestinian hostile behaviors intended or calculated to provoke or alter the politics on the ground, for Palestinian political purposes.
In 1982, the PLO was sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.
rhodescholar, Challenger, et al,
How interesting --- that you should ask this question.
No, it's called rational human behaviour when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and ...
Is there a single minority in the entire mideast not under attack by arab muslims?
(OBSEVATION)
Just earlier this weak, I had coffee with a few friends, discussing the issues of the world, and a very similar question emerged.
Is it more accurate to say radical Muslims
(relates to a person who follows the religion of Islam, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the Quran) or should it be radical Islam (Islam is a monotheistic religion
(believe to be revelations from God, as articulated by the 7th Century prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Koran)?
(COMMENT)
First, on the question of rational behaviors --- a series of decision-making processes that are based on making choices that result in the most optimal level of benefit or utility for the decision makers. In this case, the Arabs of Palestine have
(for nearly a century) consistently made decisions and acted upon them with less than desirable consequences. The decision made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have resulted in outcomes that have not been the most optimal or beneficial to the greater Palestinian constituency; either politically, economically and culturally. So I think that applying the concepts of rational behavior to the HoAP which Jihadist activity and asymmetric warfare against the territorial integrity and political independence of the UN recognized State of Israel, is inconsistent with
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for the general constituency and the central theme behind R
ational Behavior.
When one looks at the Muslim
(as the practitioner) or Islam
(as the religion practiced) relative to the number of number and magnitude of the world wide conflicts in the last five years (since 2011), one notices a distinct common thread. But the question needs to be asked more bluntly:
1. Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups (Taliban, Islamic fundamentalist political movement )
2. Bosnia Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic, Muslims
3. Cote d'Ivoire Muslims, Indigenous, Christians
4. Cyprus Christians & Muslims
5. East Timor Christians & Muslims
6. Indonesia, province of Ambon Christians & Muslims
7. Kashmir Hindus and Muslims
8. Kosovo Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims
9. Kurdistan Christians, Muslims Assaults on Christians
10. Macedonia Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims
11. Middle East Israel vs Palestinian Jihadist
12. Nigeria Christians, Animists, & Muslims
13. Pakistan Suni & Shi'ite Muslims
14. Philippines Christians & Muslims
15. Chechnya Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims.
16. Serbia, province of Vojvodina Serbian Orthodox & Roman Catholics, Muslims
17. Sri Lanka Buddhists & Hindus Tamils, Muslims
18. Thailand: Pattani province: Buddists and Muslims
19. Bangladesh: Muslim-Hindu (Bengalis) and Buddists (Chakmas)
20. Tajikistan: intra-Islamic conflict
21. Islamic State conflicts (Syria, Iraq)
Is it the Muslim
(as the practitioner) that is responsible for these radical conflicts? Or, is it Islam
(as the religion practiced) that spreads the hostility and conflict? If we adopt the one perspective --- the answer becomes: The Islamic Koran does not kill people --- Muslims do! In the opposite perspective you see the defense that several prominent Palestinian leaders have adopted: "The dilemma --- Does Muslim follow what believe believes to be the devine will? Or, does the Muslims adopt a more ethical interpretation of the Koran; one less violent?
Have Muslims (as the practitioners) destroyed their ability to discern right from wrong in their activities? Are the moral values of the Muslim so corrupted that they cannot distinguish right from wrong --- unable to challenge the inspiration of the Koran against evil deeds?
Most Respectfully,
R
Nevertheless, it remains a rational response when threatened with occupation, oppression, humiliation and brutality on a daily basis. It's what the Polish AK, French FFI and Maquis, Legion Belge, Czech UVOD, Danish Freedom Council, Greek Democratic National Army and ELAS & EDES and many, many more resistance organisations did during WW2. All of them were called Terrorists by the Nazis. The right to resist, as you well know, is enshrined in International Law included in several UN resolutions on the subject, i.e.
"2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle"
A RES 37 43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights
(COMMENT)
In 1982, the UN had altered its path and reverse its decision on Partition Plan of 1947 [
A/RES 181(II)] due to wide spread asymmetric pressures and began to endorse violence or threats of violence by certain Palestinian actors as moral and justified; AND, to condemn an entire segment of population (the Israelis). The UN had adopted, indirectly, the Arab League policy that:
It is the right of the people to combat foreign occupation and aggression by whatever means, including armed struggle, in order to liberate their territories and secure their right to self-determination, and independence and to do so in such a manner as to preserve the territorial integrity of each Arab country, of the foregoing being in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Organization's resolutions.
The clause "by whatever means, including armed struggle," or the phrase "by all available means" are adopted by the Arabs through UN endorsement and seen in a number of UN Resolutions, leading up to 1982, including
(but not all inclusive):
The significance of this did not go unnoticed. The pro-Palestinians activists had manage to intimidate the UN membership through other pressure points. The collapse of OPEC's pricing structure in December 1980 inspired the Saudis to use $32 per barrel marker, while others oil producing nations use a $36 per barrel benchmark structure. The US had just come out of the oil crisis really began in 1973. What we see in this crisis is the fact that prices of commodities like oil play a much more vital role in our economy than most think --- and can impact political policy. In October of 1973 OPEC stopped exports to the US and other western nations to punish the support of Israel, they realized the strong influence that they had on the world through oil. The immediate results of the Oil Crisis were dramatic. Prices of gasoline quadrupled, rising from just 25 cents to over a dollar in just a few months. OPEC (Arab Nations) meant to punish the western nations that supported Israel, their foe (Israel), in the Yom Kippur War (Arab surprise attack in 1973), and began to really exercise the strong influence that they had on the world through oil and the cartel structure. One of the many results of the embargo was higher oil prices all throughout the western world, particularly in America. And the US had to find some way to appease the Oil Producing Nations until the US could stabilize the situations and put in place a work-arounds. This was the backdrop to through this 1970's period --- building toward the 1982 decolonization concepts.
One of the undesirable and unintentional consequences of the wide-spread adoption of "by any means" is its application to the justification of Arab terrorism, as a subset of the concept of: "including armed struggle," --- or --- "by all available means" as it was now being condoned by the UN. There was an attempt by some nations to off-set and soften this precedent, on the use of force, through the adoption of the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [
A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)] the month before the adoption of [
A/RES/2649 (XXV)] but it proved to be ineffective; the damage was done. By a quirk of fate, the UN had supported --- in concept --- the PLO policy that Fedayeen (irregular insurgents) may take any action they deem "necessary," which constitutes the nucleus of the popular, romanticized and glorified Palestinian War of Liberation (Islamic Martyrs). This induced an escalation in the comprehensive use of terrorism which would not fall under the customary international humanitarian laws. It ever provided some legitimacy for the assassination attempts on the Hashemite King ---- and reset the insurrection of the lawful government to Jordanian Civil War that began in September 1970 and ended in July of 1971. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan could little afford to be one of those Governments that give the right to self-determination to the Palestinian peoples --- or recognize any entitlement to overthrow "by whatever means necessary," alien domination.
(STATUS QUO)
It is not likely that, with the exception of some radical elements, the Israeli conflict over the Status of the Occupied Territories is going to ignite a wider conflict. The Arab/Muslim/Islamic world already has more than it can chew. And it is unlikely that the continuation of the status quo in the occupation Palestinian territories (oPt) (a total of 6,020 sq km) will bring any more political discomfort on Israel ---- than say ---- the Russia's decision to ruled out the return of Crimea (27, 000 sq km), three times larger than the oPt, back to the Ukraine. Russia annexed Crimea on March 18, 2014. Nor is the People's Republic of China (PRC) ever going to allow the Island of Taiwan to exercise the right of self-determination. The PRC has threatened the use of military force as a response to any formal declaration of Taiwanese independence. Israel's actions are not without precedent.
Most Respectfully,
R
Isn't it funny how they disregard links and sources that disagree with their brainwashed interpretation of things?
